Madras High Court Seeks Clarity on Alleged Hera Pheri 3, Flags Uncertainty Over Copyright Claims

Madras High Court Seeks Clarity on Alleged Hera Pheri 3, Flags Uncertainty Over Copyright Claims

Introduction

The Madras High Court has raised pointed questions over the very existence of Hera Pheri 3 while hearing a copyright infringement suit concerning alleged unauthorised sequels in the popular Hera Pheri franchise. The Court’s observations came in a dispute that goes to the heart of derivative rights, sequel permissions, and the limits of remake agreements under copyright law.

Factual Background

The suit has been filed by Seven Arts International Limited, which claims exclusive derivative rights flowing from the iconic Malayalam films Ramji Rao Speaking (1989) and Mannar Mathai Speaking (1995). These films are the undisputed original source material for the Hindi film Hera Pheri.

Seven Arts contends that producer Firoz Nadiadwala was granted only a limited right to produce a single Hindi remake of Ramji Rao Speaking. However, despite this restriction, Nadiadwala allegedly went on to produce Phir Hera Pheri in 2006, thereby exceeding the scope of the original copyright assignment.

According to Seven Arts, this sequel was made without authorisation from the original authors or their assignees and without payment of royalties for derivative exploitation.

Procedural Background

The matter is presently before the Madras High Court in a copyright infringement suit seeking injunctive relief. During the course of the hearing, the Court examined the urgency claimed by Seven Arts, which is premised on the alleged impending production of Hera Pheri 3.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy engaged with counsel to ascertain whether any further sequel or derivative work in the Hera Pheri franchise was actually underway.

Issues

1. Whether the rights originally granted to Firoz Nadiadwala permitted the production of sequels beyond the first Hindi remake.

2. Whether the production of Phir Hera Pheri exceeded the scope of the original copyright assignment.

3. Whether any concrete steps are being taken towards producing Hera Pheri 3, justifying the urgency for interim relief.

Contentions of the Parties

Seven Arts International submitted that under an Assignment Agreement dated May 12, 2022, it acquired all derivative rights, including sequel, prequel, spin-off, adaptation, and character rights, from the original authors and producer of the Malayalam films. On this basis, it argued that any further sequel in the Hera Pheri franchise would amount to copyright infringement unless authorised by Seven Arts.

The plaintiff further claimed to have recently learned of plans to produce Hera Pheri 3, including possible collaboration with Cape of Good Films, and asserted that shooting was proposed to commence shortly. This apprehension formed the basis for seeking urgent interim protection.

On the other hand, counsel for producer Firoz Nadiadwala was called upon to clarify whether Hera Pheri 3 was, in fact, being made at all.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the Court must first be satisfied about the factual foundation of urgency claimed by the plaintiff. The Court observed that unless there is clarity on whether Hera Pheri 3 is actually under production or even proposed, it would be difficult to assess the immediacy and necessity of interim relief.

In this context, the Court directly questioned whether any sequel or derivative project was currently underway. The query underscored the principle that speculative apprehensions, without concrete evidence of impending infringement, may not suffice to justify urgent injunctive orders.

Decision

At this stage, the Court has not granted any interim relief. Instead, it has sought clarity from the defendants on whether Hera Pheri 3 is being made at all, signalling that the issue of urgency will be evaluated only after this foundational question is answered.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Arun C Mohan and Ms. Shruthi Srinivasan, Advocates from Mohan & Associates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Praveen Desai and Mr. Rajavelu, Advocates.